1 CGHC010239732026 2026:CGHC:27859 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 774 of 2026 Khiklal Suryawanshi S/o Bodhram Suryawanshi Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Parsapali (Risda) Tahsil Saraganw District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Melan Bai D/o Bagasram Aged About 63 Years R/o Village- Parsapali (Risda) Tahsil Saraganw District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Collector, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rupendra Kumar Dewangan, Advocate For Respondent No.2 : Ms. Vaishali Mahilong, Dy. G.A. for the State (Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J.) Order on Board 06/07/2026 1. Heard. 2. Present is a writ petition filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the SUMIT KUMAR Digitally signed by SUMIT KUMAR Date: 2026.07.07 15:39:07 +0530 2 Constitution of India challenging the order dated 02.04.2026 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Champa, District – Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. A/31/2024 whereby the joint application filed by the petitioner and the respondent No.1 under Order 23 Rule 3 of CPC has been rejected. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the plaintiff before the learned trial Court who is prosecuting a suit for declaration of title based on his possession over the suit land bearing Khasra No. 143 & 144/1 area 0.61 Acre and 106/1 area 0.33 Acre total area 0.98 Acre situated at village Parsapali, Tahsil – Saragaon, District – Janjgir-Champa which has been shown in Schedule – A annexed with the plaint. He would submit that an agreement was executed between the parties on 20.06.2006 and the defendant No.1 entered into an agreement to sell her land in favour of the plaintiff for total consideration of Rs. 98,700/- and pursuant to execution of the said agreement, the possession of the subject property was handed over to the plaintiff and since then he is in the possession of the same. Since the plaintiff is in possession since 2006 over the suit land, he filed the suit for declaration of title on the basis of the possession over the suit land, during pendency of the suit, the defendant No.1 entered into compromise with the plaintiff and a joint application under Order 23 Rule 3 of CPC has been filed by both the parties for passing a decree in favour of the plaintiff declaring his title over the subject land. He would also submit that the application filed by the parties has been rejected by the learned trial Court holding that there is a procedure prescribed under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 for transfer of the 3 title over the immovable property, however, the plaintiff can not be permitted to bypass the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act for transferring of title in his favour. The learned trial Court has also considered that it is not a case where plaintiff has sought a decree for specific performance of the contract. He would further submit that when the defendant No.1 has no objection to grant a decree in favour of the plaintiff regarding declaration of title, the learned trial Court ought to have allowed the application and pass the decree in favour of the plaintiff but the application has been rejected, therefore, the writ petition may be allowed and the impugned order may be set aside. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the document annexed with the petition. 5. The factual averment in the present writ petition is not in dispute that the plaintiff was entered into agreement with the defendant No.1 on 20.06.2006 to purchase her land of Khasra No. 143 & 144/1 area 0.61 Acre and 106/1 area 0.33 Acre total area 0.98 Acre for total consideration of Rs. 98,700/- and it is needed that the plaintiff is in possession of the subject land since then, during pendency of the suit, the parties have filed a joint application under Order 23 Rule 3 of the CPC for passing a decree on the basis of compromise in favour of the plaintiff, however, the learned trial Court has rejected the said application. From perusal of the order dated 02.04.2026 passed by learned trial Court, it transpires that the learned trial Court considered the provisions of Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and also the real intention of the parties and bypassing the provisions of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 for filing a suit for specific performance of the 4 contract. The plaintiff may be in possession of the suit property but his possession is based on the said agreement and instead of declaration of title, he was required to file the suit for specific performance of the contract but he simply files the suit for declaration of title. His claim in the suit is that since he has already paid the entire sale consideration and came into possession of the suit land he may be declared title holder of the suit property, however, in terms of the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act,1882 and the Indian Registration Act, 1908, this Court is of the opinion that the learned trial Court has rightly rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Order 23 Rule 3 of CPC and learned trial Court has rightly declined to accept the compromise between the parties in the suit. 6. I have no reason to interfere with the impugned order and there is no jurisdictional error in the same. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) JUDGE Sumit